User Profile: bonesiii

Comments

“My flesh trembles for fear of you,
and I am afraid of your judgments.”

Here we see the need for rescue “from” the law.

“My eyes long for your salvation
and for the fulfillment of your righteous promise.”

Here we see your idea that the law alone was sufficient for salvation debunked. In context of Genesis, the promise of salvation is clearly tied to the Messiah.

“I call to you; save me,
that I may observe your testimonies.”

This one sums up the entire gospel. It is not keeping the law that saves, but God saves, and thus ENABLES us to keep the law perfectly (gradually better in this life, fully in the next, forever :)).

(Cue some fundies again about what the law means, heh.)

This verse also shows why the false dichotomy that anti-NT arguments push (that it’s law versus salvation) is wrong. It helps us understand the other verses that don’t mention this detail, like these:

“Salvation is far from the wicked,
for they do not seek your statutes.

Great is your mercy, O Lord;
give me life according to your rules.”

Because the wicked don’t seek righteousness, they don’t ask God to save them, according to his promise. They do not SEEK the law, rather than just not KEEPING the law. Verses like the second in this quote are meant to be understood in context of the first and the previous quote, not quote-mined like skiddy did.

You obviously aren’t thinking it through, probably for lack of education in how to think.

It looks like your main problem is failing to understand that the Bible is written intentionally to require thought and research to understand fully; written to a high-context society. You are describing the reaction of a typical modern, low-context fundamentalist. This is not impressive!

“Ps 119 calls the Torah “truth”… it is “truth” directly and eternally from the very hand of God. Yet the NT calls it a yoke that people are “unable to bear”.”

Again, there is no “yet” here. The OT also shows that the law does not save; it convicts, just as Paul (educated by Gamaliel, prominent Jew of that day) taught. The Messiah saves by substitutionary, self-sacrificial atonement. The people are unable to bear it because they are not made holy by the law, and only the holy may enter heaven. There has to be a washing away of the sin nature and a replacing it with a holy nature (short answer…).

“I call that a major conflict and upon YEARS of further investigation found the modern western church to be filled with such problems which I was no longer willing to ignore.”

You can call it that, but it’s an emotional argument. So is your allcapped YEARS. I’ve done years of research too, and found reasons why these things are logically consistent. It’s not the time spent, it’s the quality of the research and analysis that matters.

Abraham and such were saved because they looked BEYOND the little they were told at the time, based on the CHARACTER of God from what WAS revealed, (for Abe, that being the parts he’d learned so far of revelations recorded in Genesis, for later, the Mosaic law itself), putting loyalty and trust in its author, God, and in his promise of the Seed of the Woman, who would defeat evil permanently at some future date. They didn’t know his name or the historical details of his earthly life (though many prophets obviously were told a lot of them, esp. Isaiah), but they knew enough to put saving faith in him.

Otherwise, if you think that’s a contradiction, you run into the immediate problem of OLD TESTAMENT references that describe GOD and the Messiah as the source of salvation, not the writings of the law. Basically, this is another anachronism; you’re applying the modern concept of seeing words as separate from their author. In ANE cultures, they saw an author and his words as a totality; the words implied the author (this is of course a much more logical view!).

You’re also grossly oversimplifying Psalm 119 itself. It doesn’t ONLY talk about the law; notice verse two says both and treats them as parallels in Hebrew poetry form:

“Blessed are those who keep his testimonies,
who seek him with their whole heart”

There’s no conflict or “yet” here — notice your glaring lack of a mention of WHAT THE LAW SAYS. The Law as the five books in general teaches a perfect creation, freewill, rebellion, and creation falling, and predicts one who would defeat the evil one in some kind of self-injurious way. The Law as in the law itself teaches the need for blood sacrifice in atonement for sin, and the concept of a substitutionary sacrifice. Christ is quite clear in here. Further prophesies detail what the real Messiah must fulfill, many unfakeable, and Jesus did.

Is the Toraa the truth? Yes. Does that make it the exclusive truth? No. But more importantly, is it possible it, being true, points to a deeper truth, the Messiah? Absolutely. We are not called to worship words, but God. The words are relevant to worship because they tell us more about God. Is it light? This is a poetic device used throughout the Scripture for granting wisdom. Obviously both the Law and Jesus (the ultimate author of the law) can do this logically; there’s no implication of mutual exclusion here. What about the way? Since the Law points to Jesus, who is the ultimate way to eternal, perfect life, yes, it is, but it is like the start of the road, and Jesus is the end. Obviously since the OT believers were saved too, the Law had to look forward to the Messiah in such a way, so this is exactly what we would expect.

No such claim has yet been proven. His arguments get more detailed on some issues, but on everything that the others comment on, they agree. And most of the rest can be derived logically from the others and/or the OT.

“some pagan/catholic hybrid, out of which came Luther, a major anti-semite, with christianity. Eventually, they tried to kill all the Jews.”

Are you one of those “Hitler was a Christian” fundies?

Anywho, this appears to be an attempt at guilt by association. As for your claims, I’ll let experts on Luther, etc. determine that. I’m not one, at least not on him specifically. Undoubtedly many Christians did many wrong things. But we don’t follow Luther, we follow the Scriptures. Those Scriptures PREDICT fallen humans continuing to sin sometimes, and predict fake Christians. Same as for Israel before! Again, it’s not one versus the other, but the true Israel/Christianity versus worldliness (and the more dramatic evil that can come eventually out of it).

“So to say all that came out of Isa 53 and the Tanakh is closing in on blasphemy.”

You say “so”, but show no sound support for this wild claim at all. It appears to be just bald assertion. I hope you don’t think the sentence that came before it supports it…

“I find great conflict in doctrine that says God created the Torah (which Psalms 119 calls the “truth, the light and the way”) and yet God had to send “His son” to save us from it.”

“Saying I “prefer” prophets in the Tanakh over Paul was being sarcastic.”

I don’t think it was. I think it was a slip of unintentional honesty, given your focus on preference about others, and your lack of focus on sound support. Although there could be some other ways to word these things, those are the basic two options for why people choose a view, and since there are so many, mutually exclusive, only one (if any :P) can be sound. Since I see that mine is, it’s no surprise to see your lack of sound support and your description of your view as based on preference.

As for contradictions, I have never heard a claim of one stand sound scrutiny yet. You can allege them without much research and thought for the NT, or an antibiblicist can allege them for the Bible as a whole… neither proves any of them. (Nor does claiming them for any other work prove them.)

Your next point ignores that Paul didn’t argue AGAINST the OT, but against more recent (in his day) corruptions that had built up around it in rabbinic traditions outside the Bible, corruptions he had bought into as well, obviously, until the conversaion.

Your focus on Paul is also rather strange, since he came essentially last of the prominent Christians who founded it. I thought you were just giving him as one prominent example, for his ministry to Gentiles, but with “invented”, you seem to be saying he disagreed with the main apostles, Jesus, James, etc.

“As a christian, you would never take a verse from the Koran as proof that the Koran is actually divinely inspired, would you?”

This question is strange. Do you mean that if we did, we wouldn’t be Christians anymore? That would be true, but it would make your question a word game.

If the Koran had unfakeable prophecy or any of the other things that prove the OT and NT to be Scripture, I would believe it. I DISbelieve it because it has claims that are clearly false, like the claim that Christians teach the Trinity is Father, Son, and… Mary. *DOH!*

I can’t help but see this as likely projection. You feel like you are too closeminded to fairly consider any religion/worldview than the one you ended up picked (based on preference, you admitted), and you ASSUME everybody else must be like that too. Some are, but not all. The key is, as always, sound support.

Of course, calling the NT books Scripture wouldn’t make them so either, but you obviously haven’t done your homework into why they are, as informed Christians have done.

And since you described your way of deciding what to believe as based on PREFERENCE, your “clarity” could simply be that you’re clear that you prefer those ones, with no thought or careful research required. Undoubtedly you did a LITTLE of both, but you clearly haven’t taken care to require sound support.

As for not always obeying well, the NT agrees. ;) Read the letters at the start of Revelation, for example. You say that as if the Bible predicted Christians magically being perfect from the moment they accept. That ignores the role of freewill and spiritual GROWTH (for those who DO choose to grow, not all do). So, probably you were implying a strawman.

I don’t know what you mean about “mythical benefits”.

Nor pain. It’s good you claim not to have anything to prove, but your behavior says otherwise. The idea that you have nothing to fear is nonsense — we SHOULD fear the risk of hell, and of missing out on heaven — on reconciliation with God. So the question of whether that is given through Yeshua is vital.

Your cultic argument is just an ad hominem, and would work two ways just as easily; I could describe the corrupted Judaism of Jesus’ day as cultic, and it might even be somewhat accurate. What matters is ultimately not whether you’re describing your perception, or simply insulting — what matters is if your view has sound support, so is true. I know mine does, so far as there’s certainty in it (because I don’t use certainty except for what I find sound support for).

Having a seemingly clear head/heart, and calling your position Scriptural, doesn’t make it so (especially since you’re evidently tossing out the NT part of Scripture — why stop there? Why not toss out all but Moses’ five books? Or keep just one?).

““-You say you’re not ignoring the important details about Paul’s conversion,could you explain?”
Sure; I did not ignore; I read/studied them for 15 years while in the church and then rejected them.”

This isn’t an explanation… My point was, your ARGUMENT was ignoring them, but you don’t have a case until you show a sound alternative interpretation. Maybe all that time studying them has let you know well why an attempt is likely to fail…?

““So the exact day of the week, [ ] immaterial”
Well, certainly that is not true to Israel.”

Not so; the Mosaic gave examples teaching principles, rather than letter-of-the-law legalism like modern governments use. This is well established, el. Of course, since there was no reason NOT to meet on the week’s seventh day instead of the first, everybody did as far as we know. Point is, changing it to Sunday in honor of Jesus is not a sin; the issue is in the heart. :)

“And “stone” was all cap because it was a commandment, one of the 10 that christians want hanging in schools but not really obeying very well.”

What does Christians hanging them in schools have to do with anything? They are important because God gave them first, and gave them somewhat special focus. The stone helped symbolize their importance, but that is not the most important detail. Focusing on it makes you look like you’re using an anachronistic, superficial approach, as you seem to admit here.

Mind, I doubt it too, but whether “highly” or not, I’m honestly unsure. The idea that profit is evil is a liberal one. Idolatry of money is evil, but money is also needed for survival in this life, and for many things that are beneficial besides mere survival (including spreading a good message). Paul made an argument about this, if you recall; though he wanted to not make use of the right to be paid for his work, he did defend this right for others.

Which one would somebody who went to heaven hold to? I think it depends on their personal circumstances. Since both are defended in the Bible, both could be valid for different people. Same as people who don’t come back from heaven.

@ elskid’s recycling of the (rather spammish) argument from page 1 — go there to see my refutation of it. :)

Common misconception. Angels seem to be portrayed as having abilities of (maybe limited) shapeshifting, able to have wings or not have them as needed; to take a human form or appear more angelic. At least some angelic beings are described with wings (two major types with more than two wings). Some clear instances of angels mistaken for humans are described too. (Or possibly different angels have different features. Point is, seeing a real angel with wings is possible. Not that any particular specific claim is reliable, though.)

This is actually a dangerous sentiment, since it’s basically the old Thought Police concept recycled, that the American founders rejected, giving us freedom — not that it’s good to feed on the feeble minded, of course, but that giving those in power the right to decide WHO is doing that opens up the obvious risk of abuse. (It could be you doing that, for example, in somebody’s interpretation.) As history has demonstrated time and time again…

Sorry but this is proof-texting, and that verse is used often for it. You can’t settle that without a careful study into its meaning and context and the rest of the Bible. Other contexts clearly describe knowing things in heaven.

One obvious solution is that Solomon meant that dead BODIES know nothing. This would fit the context well, as Ecclesiastes generally speaks of the perspective of those in this life. Another I’ve heard is that “know” here can mean something more like “focus clearly”.

I’m not yet sure which one is right or if something else is… the one thing I am sure of is “soul sleep” advocates are misusing it, and it is not a good argument against NDEs. :) You can’t cite one ref from the Bible to prove the dead know nothing in the literal English sense, when other refs do describe them knowing things! At the very least, you would have to explain away those other cites…

Third, your suggestion that somehow upon entering the afterlife as believers, we wouldn’t or shouldn’t care about family members also saved is DEEPLY concerning. A very important part of the Bible’s teaching is that our life as loyal followers of Jesus is not just about how we relate to God but also how we relate to the other people God also made and also loves. The Bible says a TON on that subject.

If you feel free to just dismiss it all for heaven, do you dismiss it in this life? That approach could be quite dangerous, as how we relate to others is a matter of responsibility and we will be judged on how we perform in the rewards judgment.

Now, over-focus on family members can be unhealthy too, mainly if you have loved ones who stubbornly refuse salvation and die in that state. And a version of it that idolizes them over God is certainly possible, and must be guarded against too (see Jesus’ teaching about a ‘sword to divide’). But it makes no sense to act like we shouldn’t care about other beings that God loves, and simultaneously claim to love God purely, because the God we’re to love commands us to love others. It’s for love of others, after all, that we are commanded to spread the gospel! It surely makes sense to celebrate if we find out that those we loved in life did indeed accept genuinely and are there.

(Not that NDEs are reliable; point is using love for family, etc. as evidence against the accounts doesn’t work.)

Please note that “sleep” was a figure of speech the Bible used and does not carry the meaning that modern “soul sleep” advocates have pushed, as if it’s somehow contrary to the current afterlife, which the Bible clearly does teach.

I’m seeing a few red flags in your second paragraph too, although overall you’re certainly right that the common lack of focus on Jesus in many NDE accounts is a cause for serious concern about them.

First, Jesus isn’t heaven; heaven is a gift given to us by him, just like this world (but obviously not fallen, and it’s for a different purpose; this creation is for giving people the chance to make their freewill choice of loyalty or rejection, heaven is for those who have chosen loyalty).

Second, the idea that any attention paid to things God gives us rather than just God alone is contrary to the Bible. That is a false dichotomy refuted in Romans 1:20-21 among other places (this world was created by God, and it attests logically to his existence, and there is a way to appreciate created things without idolizing them — that is to be grateful to God for them!).

This doesn’t mean that NDEs are real, but it does mean real accounts are possible even if they focus on details besides Jesus. The Bible itself does this in many places, notice. Those details are to be understood as attesting to the nature of God; saying heaven is wonderful is logically connected with gratitude to God for making it so. :)

Third, your suggestion that somehow upon entering the afterlife as believers, we wouldn't or shouldn't care about family members also saved is DEEPLY concerning. A very important part of the Bible's teaching is that our life as loyal followers of Jesus is not just about how we relate to God but also how we relate to the other people God also made and also loves. The Bible says a TON on that subject.
If you feel free to just dismiss it all for heaven, do you dismiss it in this life? That approach could be quite dangerous, as how we relate to others is a matter of responsibility and we will be judged on how we perform in the rewards judgment.
Now, over-focus on family members can be unhealthy too, mainly if you have loved ones who stubbornly refuse salvation and die in that state. And a version of it that idolizes them over God is certainly possible, and must be guarded against too (see Jesus' teaching about a 'sword to divide'). But it makes no sense to act like we shouldn't care about other beings that God loves, and simultaneously claim to love God purely, because the God we're to love commands us to love others. It's for love of others, after all, that we are commanded to spread the gospel! It surely makes sense to celebrate if we find out that those we loved in life did indeed accept genuinely and are there.
(Not that NDEs are reliable; point is using love for family, etc. as evidence against the accounts doesn't work.)

[-1] January 14, 2015 at 1:11am

[continued]

You’re certainly right that there is judgment, but I’m not sure why you bring it up here.

As for “nobody goes to heaven”, the word for heaven in question carried multiple meanings. It could mean just the sky, the stars in the sky, angelic authority figures, God’s authority (and several similar indirect uses), the current afterlife realm, a division of that, the future New Heaven and New Earth after this world passes away, or specifically the New Jerusalem, which seems to be being prepared right now and will be revealed at the creation of the eternal heaven (and which seems to house God the Father’s throne). Jesus clearly did not mean the current afterlife realm in general because many were there and Jesus elsewhere taught that. Given that he describes himself as descended from it, he probably means God’s throne, whether in or to later become in the NJ. This is evidently not part of the current temporary heaven where believers who have died are resting.

Next you make a semantic argument based on this, of choosing to refer to what Jesus meant as heaven, and nothing else. But Jesus was not speaking English, and the normal English term for the present afterlife realm is heaven. You can label things your way, but need not, and it will only tend to confuse normal speakers of English. It’s also not consistent with the biblical use of the original words in both Hebrew and Greek which were flexible.

The “it is appointed” statement is describing the NORMAL system (the rare exception would have a different appointment, which God certainly has the right to do if he chooses; note the “man” there, clearly referring to mankind -in general-), and the context does not portray it as an argument against revival/resurrection, but it was making the point that Jesus didn’t need to sacrifice himself over and over again; once was enough for everybody. The goal here was to assure Christians that their sins WERE covered even though they were numerous and from multiple people, since Jesus was one person and died only once.

So, in cases like Lazarus, dying the final time would be what is referred to here, but since that happened so rarely, it wasn’t worth wasting space with a note of “(other than Lazarus and the like)”.

This of course doesn’t prove this particular claim is genuine. Just saying, your argument about “die once” (it’s not live once, BTW) doesn’t work.

And I don’t see why this would be a mistake. If a particular instance is genuine, and testifying to it helps others, or it affects your life in a way that helps others, it could easily fit into God’s complex plan for how all things work together for good. :) Was Lazarus dying a mistake? No. There is more to reality than what you have evidently imagined, to paraphrase the saying.

[continued]
You're certainly right that there is judgment, but I'm not sure why you bring it up here.
As for "nobody goes to heaven", the word for heaven in question carried multiple meanings. It could mean just the sky, the stars in the sky, angelic authority figures, God's authority (and several similar indirect uses), the current afterlife realm, a division of that, the future New Heaven and New Earth after this world passes away, or specifically the New Jerusalem, which seems to be being prepared right now and will be revealed at the creation of the eternal heaven (and which seems to house God the Father's throne). Jesus clearly did not mean the current afterlife realm in general because many were there and Jesus elsewhere taught that. Given that he describes himself as descended from it, he probably means God's throne, whether in or to later become in the NJ. This is evidently not part of the current temporary heaven where believers who have died are resting.
Next you make a semantic argument based on this, of choosing to refer to what Jesus meant as heaven, and nothing else. But Jesus was not speaking English, and the normal English term for the present afterlife realm is heaven. You can label things your way, but need not, and it will only tend to confuse normal speakers of English. It's also not consistent with the biblical use of the original words in both Hebrew and Greek which were flexible.